Dismissed

Faiz Khan @ Ziaul v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC13 Dec 2022BAIL/10628/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This judgment considers a bail application under Section 439 CrPC filed by Faiz Khan. The court held that due to the nature of the offence, involvement of gunshots, and specific naming by injured witnesses, bail was not appropriate. The application was rejected.

What did the court decide?

Bail application rejected. Trial court directed to expedite trial proceedings preferably within six months.

Faiz Khan @ Ziaul Vs State of U.P. — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Allahabad HC (2022)

¶1

Court No. - 10

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 10628 of 2019

¶3

Applicant :- Faiz Khan @ Ziaul Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Akhlaq Ali,Mohd. Tanveer Alam Khan,Nripendra Mishra Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Ajey Singh

¶4

Hon'ble Dinesh Kumar Singh,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State and Sri Ajey Singh, learned counsel for the complainant and perused the record.

¶6

The present application under Section 439 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the applicant Faiz Khan alias Ziaul S/o Raju Jhabbar seeking bail in FIR/ Case Crime No. 73 of 2019, under Sections 323, 504, 506, 307, 302, 34 IPC and section 7, Criminal Law Amendment Act Police Station Dargah Sharif, District Bahraich.

¶7

As per allegations in the first information report the injured Kadir has Auto Parts Repairing Shop near Kailash Hotel in Bahraich. Nadeem, son of Hashim also has shop adjacent to the shop of Kadir. At around 8 p.m. on 5th February 2019 the accused Faiz, Abdul Rahman (the present applicant) and Monu came on motorcycle and asked Nadeem to give them money. Nadim refused to give money on which some altercation took place. These three accused went away and at around 9:30 pm they again came back along with the co-accused-applicant Babu. They were armed with country-made pistols and in order to kill Nadeem they started firing. To save Nadim Anish, Mahfooz and Abdul Kadir ran towards him. The accusedapplicant and other co-accused fired at them as well and as a result thereof Anees, Mahfooz, Nadeem and Abdul Kadir fell down after receiving gunshot injuries. The injured Aneessh died in KGMU Lucknow and other injured were treated there.

¶8

All three injured witnesses have named the accused-applicant specifically in commission of the offence.

¶9

Considering the nature of offence, evidence available against the accused-applicant and the manner in which the incident was given effect to allegedly by the accused-applicant and other coaccused this court does not deem it appropriate to enlarge the accused-applicant on bail. The bail application is hereby rejected .

¶10

The trial court is directed to expedite the trial proceedings and

¶11

conclude the same preferably within six months.

¶12

Any observation on merits is confined to rejection of the bail application only.

¶13

( Dinesh Kumar Singh, J. )

¶14

Order Date :- 13.12.2022 A.Nigam

¶15

Digitally signed by ANUJ NIGAM Date: 2022.12.17 16:15:15 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Faiz Khan @ Ziaul v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Faiz Khan @ Ziaul v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Vyas Shukla Vs State of U.P. Thru Secy. Home Lucknow and Anr.

Saroj Kumar Shukla Vs State of U.P.

Avdheshwar Dayal Khare Vs State of U.P.through C.B.I. A.C.B. Lucknow.

Bramha Prakash Tiwari Vs State of U.P. Thru. Central Bureau of Investigation /Anti Co.

Anil Kumar Mishra Vs State of U.P. Thru Prin.Secy. Home

Dhaniram Alias Jitendra Singh Vs State of U.P Thru. Prin. Secy. Depart . of Home and Others